Legal Opinion
Iannotti v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 5, 1988PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Casey, J. P.
At issue on this appeal is whether General Obligations Law § 9-103, which limits a landowner’s liability when his premises are used for certain recreational purposes, applies to property which is located within the city limits of the City of Amsterdam, Fulton County, and is neither remote nor undeveloped. Based upon the holding of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Russo v City of New York (116 AD2d 240), Supreme Court concluded that the statute did not apply to defendant’s property and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. While we agree…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sega v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Ferres v. City of New RochelleNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- O'Keefe v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Seminara v. Highland Lake Bible Conference, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Michalovic v. Genesee-Monroe Racing Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Iannotti v. Consolidated Rail Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Gardner v. Owasco River Railway, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Hoffman v. Joseph R. Wunderlich, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Albright v. MetzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995